RESHKIN vs GIBADULLIN

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV016152: RESHKIN vs GIBADULLIN 01/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Department 25

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant Ilgiz Gibadullin’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This matter arises out of a business transaction by which Plaintiff Aleksandr Reshkin (“Plaintiff”) loaned Defendant the principal sum of $17,000 with an interest rate of 120% per annum and a total repayment amount of $27,200 due by April 1, 2025. (Compl., ¶ 5.) The parties executed a promissory note memorializing these terms. (Ibid.) Following Defendant’s initial default, the parties came to an agreement in writing to extend the due date to July 1, 2025, with a total amount due of $29,000. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to make any payment toward the debt, and, as of July 2, 2025, is in default. (Compl., ¶ 7, 8.)

Defendant now moves to dismiss the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 on the grounds that California is not the proper venue for this action. Plaintiff opposes.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30(a) provides:

When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016152: RESHKIN vs GIBADULLIN 01/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Department 25

In considering a forum non conveniens motion, California courts use a two-step process. (Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 197, 203.) The Court first determines whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial. (Ibid.) The Court then considers the private and public interests of retaining the action in California. (Ibid.) “When a case involves a mandatory forum selection clause, it will usually be given effect unless it is unfair or unreasonable.” (Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 661.) “Moreover, a court will normally reject any claims that the chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient.” (Ibid.)

The salient question is whether “the contractually selected forum would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice or that no rational basis exists for the choice of forum” (Intershop Communications AG, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 199; see also CQL Original Products, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 1354.) “Neither inconvenience nor the additional expense of litigating in the selected forum are factors to be considered.” (Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 199.)

The moving party's burden is to establish a suitable forum and to provide the trial court with sufficient facts to weigh and balance whether jurisdiction should be retained. (National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 933, fn. 15.) Where plaintiff is a California resident for purposes of forum non conveniens, there is a “strong presumption” in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum. (Id. at pp. 926-927.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that California is not the proper forum for the instant action, because he is a permanent resident of Florida, and all relevant facts alleged in the complaint occurred outside of California. Defendant argues that he has not consented to participate in an action in California, given that he resides in Florida, and has never conducted business in California.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the promissory notes signed by the parties contain a forum selection clause, identifying California as the proper forum for all actions arising out of the agreements. Plaintiff argues that he resides in California, the loan funds were transmitted from California, and that Defendant has consented to California jurisdiction in the forum selection clause found in the promissory notes. Plaintiff contends that he would be prejudiced by granting of the instant motion, as the refiling of the instant action in Florida would impose an unnecessary expense.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the promissory note appears to have a choice of law provision, not a forum selection clause. Specifically, the promissory notes executed by the parties include a section which states: “Governing Law: this note shall

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016152: RESHKIN vs GIBADULLIN 01/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Department 25

be governed by the laws of the State of California.” (Opp., Exs. A and B.)[1] Neither Party has pointed the Court to, nor has the Court located, a provision selecting a forum in either promissory note.

The moving defendant has the burden of proof on a motion for forum non conveniens. As noted above, the for the first step in such a motion, the moving defendant must establish that the selected forum is suitable for the claims presented. (David v. Medtronic, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 734, 741-743 [citing Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751].) The California Supreme Court has concluded the first factor is actually “a threshold inquiry that must be satisfied before the court could proceed to the balancing test” and “In order for an alternative forum to be ‘suitable,’ there must be jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.” (David v. Medtronic, Inc., supra, at p. 742-743 (citing Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., supra, at p. 751-752 & fn. 3).)

The Court finds that Defendant has not met his burden to identify an alternate forum or demonstrate that the selected forum is suitable for the claims presented. To the extent the Court infers that Defendant seeks to litigate in Florida, Defendant fails to present any facts or argument that Florida is a suitable forum and that there are no jurisdictional or statute of limitations bars to hearing the claims on the merits. As such, Defendant has failed to satisfy the threshold inquiry.

Similarly, Defendant has not presented sufficient facts for the Court to weigh the private and public interest factors. While Defendant asserts that he is a permanent resident of Florida and has no residence, property, or business ties to California, the Court notes that the motion is not supported by any declaration or request for judicial notice. However, even if the Court were to accept these assertions in the moving papers as supported by evidence, Defendant has presented no evidence that all the relevant events to this case occurred outside the state of California.

Indeed, it appears that Defendant concedes that he entered into a contract with a California resident, which contained a California choice of law provision. Defendant does not address ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, the interest of the community, the congestion of courts, or the weighing of competing interests. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p.751.) Further, Plaintiff presents evidence that he has resided in California at all relevant times and all loan funds were transmitted from Plaintiff’s California bank account. (Reshkin Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 is DENIED.[2]

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016152: RESHKIN vs GIBADULLIN 01/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Department 25

of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The parties are not prevented from applying California law even were the instant

action to be litigated in Florida. [2] The Motion only sets forth that it is being made on the grounds that California is not

the proper venue and that the statutory basis for the Motion is Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. As such, this is the only basis for which Plaintiff was provided proper notice. The Court notes that at the conclusion of the legal argument, Plaintiff also conclusorily asserts that he does not have proper contacts with California to satisfy personal jurisdiction. The Court finds that Defendant has not provided proper notice to Plaintiff if he is seeking to bring this motion before the Court, nor has Defendant filed a motion to quash pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10.

As such, the Court finds that this issue is not properly before the Court. Nevertheless, even if it was, based on the contacts with California relating to the contractual dispute at issue in this case, as set forth above, the Court would likely find sufficient facts to exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant in this matter. (See Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)